The "science" of Miracles

A precedent by definition must be the first occurrence that we know about. Conventionally, a phrase like, "until it happens", would also imply the first occurrence of something. After reading both of your statements about this and going back to the threads, I am still puzzled at what you think is the difference between your version and Ringo's. As I see it, Hanks version is just a bit redundant, but that is not what you see.Could you clarify the distinction you are making?ABE:Actually, I think I see what you are doing.You: "Everything is unprecedented until it happens."By interpreting "it" so narrowly that the pronoun only applies to the current specific instance instead of the class of instances of the same thing, you can manage to make Ringo's statement appear to be ridiculous and to have a meaning he could not possibly have intended.One might say, "pigs flying" is unprecedented until it happens. And we would all know exactly what that was intended to mean. Few folks would take the sentence to mean that even if we saw a pig fly today, a different pig flying tomorrow would be unprecedented. Yet that appears to be the meaning you are attributing to Ringo's statement.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I understand and accept your argument in that I think it one valid way of looking at it, but I look at it another way. The term "everything" is in essence a blank in which anything can be filled in. What we have in effect is these two fill-in-the-blank statements:

• ______ is unprecedented until it happens.
• ______ is unprecedented until it happens for the first time.

I don't believe there's nothing that could be plugged into that blank that could render those two statements non-synonymous. Probably the key difference in our views is that you consider "for the first time" redundant. It doesn't feel redundant to me.But this is a familiar situation for me, to feel uncomfortable with a degree of precision others feel perfectly comfortable with. I'm often surprised at the inaccuracy and imprecision of some legal documents - I'm thinking of certain ones I've had experience with, for employee termination (I took an early retirement package, which falls into the category of employee termination, an imprecision I also disagree with) and real estate closings. The response to my concerns have taken a variety of lines that rarely alleviated them:

• "No, it means what we said, not what you think it says."
• "It does say that, but it is never interpreted that way."
• "This is standard language, it never causes a problem."
• "The situation is unlikely to arise."
• "It doesn't apply to this situation, so just ignore it."
• "Yes, the two documents make contradictory statements, but they're provided by the state and both have to be signed or we can't complete the closing. It's nothing to worry about."
• "We don't have all the information for that document yet, but let's complete the closing anyway. When we have the information we'll send you the document to sign. This isn't a problem."
• "Yes, we understand that's information that shouldn't be disclosed to the other party, but if they don't see this document so they can sign it then we can't complete the closing."

One of the weirdest conversations I ever had with a lawyer concerned dates for signing documents. The process we agreed to required that we sign document A before signing document B, but document A wasn't going to be made available until after document B was signed. I argued up and down with the lawyer that this was contradictory and needed to be resolved, and he argued equally vehemently that there was no contradiction and he wasn't changing anything (it would have required making the same change for around 80 other people also taking early retirement, so he had good motivation for taking an irrational position). In the end it still worked. We signed the documents in the inverse order specified by the process document we signed, and it didn't seem to matter at all.But when I read one of those documents from my bank or credit card company or investment firm, they read like they're locked up tight with every possible contingency anticipated and appropriate processes described. I think the best lawyers must work for financial companies while the average lawyers do real estate closings or are attached to personnel departments or work for state and local government.Sorry, long way around to say that the way my mind works leads me to seek precision. Maybe sometimes I seek too much precision, but like I said, that's the way my mind works, so it doesn't seem that way to me. That is, I understand I could be wrong, but I don't think so myself.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Of course there is. When something unprecedented does happen, it has to be the first time. You don't have to specify "for the first time" any more than you have to specify losing your virginity for the first time. Your reasoning is circular. You say there was a violation of the conservation of mass and then you say there must have been a change in mass because there was a violation. Why wouldn't they just call it a flying bridge? The guy with big feet is called Bigfoot, the monster in Loch Ness is called the Loch Ness Monster, flying objects that have not been identified are called Unidentified Flying Objects, etc. That's clear communication. Why would scientists use a term that doesn't clearly describe the phenomenon and clearly distinguish it from other phenomena? Since Stile didn't respond to me, I have no reason to think he disagrees with me.Edited by ringo, : "reading" --> "reasoning"

We'll just have to disagree. You're confused. In case you didn't notice, saying that they'd "undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena" isn't specific about what term they'd adopt, and how many times now have I said that what term they adopt isn't important, that it's the nature of the phenomena that's important? Wrong again. In Message 433 Stile wrote: And in Message 434 Stile wrote: I think you might want to reexamine your logic that Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you.--Percy

So be less confusing. What is it that you're actually trying to disagree with? My logic stands. If Stile disagrees with me, he's perfectly capable of saying so.

Stile? It seems that you are being asked to weigh in. Is Ringo patently logical or does there need to be a consensus on his part? Flying Bridges are mos def not common....in fact unprecedented, though once it was observed it would have precedence.Critics argue that the supposed miracles in the Bible allegedly happened at a time when human understanding and superstition were more prevalent than today. We have since observed David Blaine and Benny Hinn and are as a species more analytical and skeptical than were the observers back then.We still don't know for sure that if water were turned into wine today that it could be tested....no scientist barges into Catholic Mass and requests samples of the transubstitution... If a wedding had verifiable barrels of water become wine, however... and the wine could be tested, the event would be unprecedented. All of the many unobservable untestable masses throughout History wouldn't count towards precedence... Same with flying bridges. Many may have been reported throughout History, but only our hypothetical one would have been examined by science.As it stands now...the event is unprecedented. (hypothetically) and I think this is Percys basic point---for the moment, the event is unique and special. It is not simply thrown into a generic unexplained for now file that science keeps. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Meh.I've said my part.
The conversation no longer holds my interest. (Can you imagine me wearing a frilly hat and looking down at others while saying this? Because that's what I'm doing) Same with Faith in her another-attempt-at-defending-the-flood tomfoolery.
She mentioned my earlier attempt to walk her through a discussion showing how something could become a fossil and get buried deep in the ground while a landscape thrived at the surface.I think my (non-expert) explanation confused her on what I was attempting to explain vs. what she was taking away from it. Or perhaps just the amount of time that's past has clouded her memory of what the exchange was actually about. Or likely a bit of both.But again:Meh.I've said my part.
The conversation no longer holds my interest.I am a selfish, selfish man on this site. And I like to engage in conversations when I am interested in the subject or want to learn something for me or another selfish-for-me reason.Right now, nothing is tickling my fancy.So, I'll remain aloof. Twirling my mustache, becoming more and more crazy as I remain in my solitude, lording over those peasants below.Ow.
I think my tongue poked a hole in my cheek...

I disagree with your position that science would not consider the possibility of phenomena that inexplicably violate known physical laws when that's what the evidence indicates. You stand logic on its head. By no logic can anyone's lack of response indicate lack of disagreement. I quoted him making statements that disagree with you. Here they are again. In Message 433 Stile wrote: And in Message 434 Stile wrote: Your "logic" of Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you is illogical.--Percy

My position is that science wouldn't treat those phenomena any differently than they treat any other phenomena. You seem to agree with that. Nor does silence indicate disagreement. I, for one, don't often post, "Good answer! Good answer!" to posts I agree with. Neither do you, as far as I can tell. I have no reason to think that Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me. Nothing you quoted disagrees with me. You me be seeing differences that aren't there again, such as in the discussion of "unprecedented". Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. I have said repeatedly that miracles have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to do with miracles. I define a miracle as an event that is attributed to unknown causes by some people - but not by others who know what the standards of science are. That definition is in line with dictionaries, Wikipedia, etc. An example is the Miracle of the Sun, which is a genuine miracle to religious minds but simply an unexplained phenomenon to scientific minds. Here's another example of the same logic: In a restaurant, I ask a group of people, "Does anybody mind if I take this chair?" Nobody responds. According to my logic, nobody minds, so I take the chair. That logic works pretty well in real life.

Why not?

If by this you mean that they would follow the evidence where it leads, then sure, we agree. Yes, of course that's true, it's just that you're assuming the only possibility is that "silence == lack of disagreement." There are others. He may not have been interested in your particular line of argument. He may not find you worth discussing with. He may not have had time. But you have no reason to think it doesn't, either. So you're saying that because Stile said "if" that means he doesn't disagree with you. In that case, since I'm also using the word "if" (we're engaging in a "what if") that means you and I don't disagree, either. Interesting logic. But what if (note the word "if") science were to encounter a miracle? Since I used the word "if" it can't be a possibility we disagree about. But what if (note the word "if") instead of using your definition we were to use the one I suggested. Since I used the word "if" it can't be something we disagree about. The Miracle of the Sun is not a phenomenon at all to scientific minds. How is you addressing a question to a group of people an accurate analogy to you not addressing Stile at all?--Percy

It means I don't disagree with him. If Fred Flintstone was real, Stile might think he'd be a good neighbour. I don't disagree. I can agree with some ifs and disagree with others. I disagree with your conclusion that the scientists would react differently to your scenario than to other phenomena. I agree with your waffling "something else" conclusion that they would react the same. If you can't make up your mind, it's easier to agree with one of your opinions. Science is no more likely to encounter a miracle than it is to encounter Fred Flintstone. A miracle is the same as a cartoon character as far as science is concerned. Of course it is. Why else would they try to explain it? How is it not? If there are no objections, what difference does it make how many people don't object?

Well, this makes no sense. How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"?And why are you objecting to me saying, "he doesn't disagree with you", since that's exactly how you've been expressing it, for instance in your Message 573, "...he disagrees with me," and Message 575, "If Stile disagrees with me,...", and Message 579, "...Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me." Why are you suddenly insisting on flipping it to, "I don't disagree with him"? And again, if they're meaningfully different, how?Your arguments often seem equivalent to, "Let's throw random stuff up against the wall and see what sticks." Can you explain how this example clarifies your position? But in Message 579 you explicitly stated that you didn't share Stile's definition of miracle, but because of the word "if" it meant there was no disagreement. Here you are saying it: So repeating your position back to you, some "ifs" you agree with, some you don't. Stile's definition of miracle is an "if" you disagree with, but you don't disagree because he used the word "if". I guess you're one of those people who can hold two opposing opinions at the same time.Back to the current message: "React differently" only in the sense that following the evidence where it leads might end up in places unexpected by science, such as that the phenomena did indeed inexplicably violate known physical laws. I've said the same thing from the beginning, expressing an interest in exploring how science would react when faced with evidence of phenomena inexplicably violating known physical laws. See the end of Message 491.I do think scientists would be willing to accept different conclusions for phenomena that in effect seem to suspend known physical laws, rather than those that just seem mildly anomalous like the examples mentioned earlier of the spectrum of black body radiation and the precession in the orbit of Mercury.AbE:I originally intended to reply to the last few comments, replying to them now: You earlier claimed in Message 569 that, "I've been discussing your so-called 'thought experiment' at length," but you really haven't. This is just another expression of your unwillingness to consider the "what if". You haven't been discussing the thought experiment but have instead been arguing that it could never happen. Explain it scientifically, you mean? Where? What journal? Do you have a citation?[AbE2]
I looked it up in Google Scholar and did find some citations, but they're just speculation about what might have happened, not examination of scientific evidence from the miracle, which doesn't exist, e.g.: Modelling of the Phenomenon Known as the Miracle of the Sun as the Reflection of Light from Ice Crystals Oscillating Synchronously
[/AbE2]Good non sequitur response. Rephrasing in case you didn't understand, how is asking a question an accurate analogy to where you ask no question?--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.Edited by Percy, : AbE2.

You claimed that your quotes show him disagreeing with me. I don't think they do.I can only surmise from Stile's posts whether or not he disagrees with me. I don't see where he does. I can be pretty sure whether or not I disagree with him. I don't. Sometimes I express it one way, sometimes the other. The only place they are different is in your imagination. If X is true, then Y. I can't disagree with that.But if X is patently false, then I can disagree that Y necessarily follows. Fred Flintstone is not real, so I can disagree that he would make a good neighbor. Similarly, if you define a miracle as a kind of pie, I can disagree with conclusions based on that definition. Or I can disagree with the definition. Again, I can't disagree with the conclusion he draws from his premise. I can, however, disagree with his premise. When you put an "if" in front of something, it isn't an opinion. I haven't said any such thing. I've said that if your fairy tale did come true, scientists wouldn't treat it any differently than they would treat the discovery of a new species of beetle. The lack of an objection is an accurate analogy to the lack of an objection. Whether it was phrased as a question or asked in Swahili is irrelevant. If nobody objected when I took the chair, then nobody objected.My posts here are not super-top-secret so Stile can freely read them. I do not have the power to repress my fellow-members' posts so Stile can freely respond to them. If he has any objections, he can express them. If he expresses no objection, I have no reason to think he objects.

You ignored the question about how "he doesn't disagree with me" differs from "I don't disagree with him". You just blasted right through waffle words and weasel words and into the realm of pure fabrication. Here you are in your Message 579 stating that you disagree with Stile over his definition of miracle: Can there be anything more problematic to discussion than disagreement over the definition of terms fundamental to the topic? Here's where what you say doesn't add up:

• Stile: "If you define miracle to be 'going against known standards of science' (or something like that)..."
• Me: "If you define miracle to be 'inexplicable violations of known physical laws..."

Stile you don't disagree with, me you do. Explain. "If" is in front of both Stile's and my opinions.I'm not agreeing with your reasoning based on use of the word "if", I'm just noting the inconsistency and contradictions in how you're applying the logic you've described. What do you mean you haven't said any such thing? I just quoted you saying such a thing when I quoted from your Message 583, and here it is: You're not discussing the thought experiment - you're dismissing it. And here you are dismissing it again: Comparing it to Fred Flintstone and a fairy tale is not discussion of something you're giving sincere consideration - it's dismissal. The discovery of a new species of beetle wouldn't involve a violation of known physical laws, so no, they would not treat the discovery like just a new species of beetle. The article about the new species of beetle would be buried in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, while papers about the discovery of violations of known physical laws would appear in journals like Science and Nature, and announcements of the discovery would appear on the front pages of every major newspaper around the world. Whether it was asked in Swahili is irrelevant? How can there be an objection to a request no one understood? Your arguments, as is common, make no sense. You don't know if Stile has even read any of your posts. You don't know that if he did read your posts whether he'd consider you worth responding to. The reality is that you have no reason to believe either way whether he objects.But that doesn't matter. We can read what you said, and we can read what Stile said. Obviously you disagree with his premise, but don't see that as a problem. Just as obviously you disagree with my premise which is very similar to Stile's, but do see that as a problem. It makes sense only in Ringo-land.--Percy